Disposed

Kondu Reddy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Madras HC15 Nov 2019CRL OP(MD)/1854/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court records the submission that the police enquiry was closed based on the de facto complainant's input and directs respondents not to harass the petitioner or call him under the guise of a reopened enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to harass the petitioner or call him in the guise of enquiry after police complaint was closed.

Kondu Reddy, Vs the Superintendent of Police — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRL.O.P (MD) No.1854 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2019 CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.O.P (MD) No.1854 of 2019

Kondu Reddy

... Petitioner

1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Superintendent of Police,

¶8

Madurai District, Madurai.

¶9

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam,

¶10

Madurai District.

¶11

3.The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District.

¶12

4.Captain R.Rajendran

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to harass the petitioner and not to conduct “Katta Panchayat” by interfering into the Civil Dispute in the guise of enquiry on the basis of the alleged complaint given by the 4^th respondent.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan

¶16

For Respondents : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, G.A.(Crl. Side) for RR1 to 3 Mr.Poornachandran for R4

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents not to harass the petitioner and not to conduct “Katta Panchayat” by interfering into the Civil Dispute in the guise of enquiry on the basis of the alleged complaint given by the 4^th respondent.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, petition enquiry was conducted and the same was closed.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/2

¶22

CRL.O.P (MD) No.1854 of 2019

¶23

3.Recording the said submission, this petition is closed. However, it is made clear that since the complaint has been closed, the respondent shall not call the petitioner in the guise of enquiry and harass him

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar (Crl Side) // True Copy //

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

Arul To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District, Madurai. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. 3.The Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to M/s.M.VISHNUVARTHANAN, Advocate ( SR-98682[F] dated 15/11/2019 )

¶28

CRL.O.P (MD) No.1854 of 2019 15.11.2019

¶29

KK/SAR/03.12.2019/2P-6C/

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

2/2

Kondu Reddy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kondu Reddy, v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Rev.Father Lusiyan Thamas Fr, Vs the Inspector of Police

Anbumani, Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Veluchamy Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

R.Dhineshmary Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sittammal, Vs the Superintendent of Police

C.Patturaj Vs the Superintendent of Police